This article isn't really about Bucky Fuller so much as it is about a 21st century skeptic's view of technological optimism. The criticisms feel weak unless you are predisposed against his philosophy.

In so far as the critique has any merit, it comes from comparisons to him and others who make careers out of commentary and punditry (inherently self-aggrandizing professions). I think that type of work is actually legitimate, though it is a) basically what publications like Slate and TNR are for and b) not really a complete summary of Fuller's work, which succeeded in genuine contributions to architecture.